Art of Desire & Arakni, Black Widow

[olive saddle]

Tyler attacks with Art of Desire (red), and in the reaction step Tyler activates & resolves Arakni, Black Widow, giving AoD the ability "When this hits a hero, they banish a card from their hand"

When resolving this trigger, Nic banishes a red card from their hand upon resolution of the trigger.

Does Tyler gain 1 hp and draw 1 card from Art of Desire's static ability "whenever this banishes a red card, draw a card and gain 1hp"?

Having trouble locating the relevant CR passages which explain this (either confirming/otherwise), appreciate the judge Discord's assistance 🙂

[tiny ocean]

Black Widow's effect appends the ability to the attack (...it gets "[ability]"), so Art of Desire effectively has two on-hits that banish a card. Black Widow's effect will indeed trigger the second ability of Art of Desire.

[tawny wedge]

it will actually not because black widow lets the player banish a card not you

[tiny ocean]

Ohhhh, you're right, I missed the "they"

[olive saddle]

Intuitively, I agree - have you/any other judges you know had any luck with piecing together the portions from the CR/release notes etc. which could support this?

I've found only this so far to my understanding:
1.8.1a The source of an effect is the same as the source of the ability or effect that generated it, unless otherwise specified by the effect.

[tiny ocean]

From the release notes:

But the effect says "When this hits a hero, they banish a card from their hand."

It is instructing the player to do it. If it was AoD doing it, it would say *it gets "When this hits a hero, banish a card from their hand", using the same grammar as AoD's own effect.

[short sandal]

Yeah there are similar interactions with korshem with pick a card any card Vs brain freeze (you reveal their card vs. target opponent reveals their hand)

[merry fulcrum]

the rule that backs up the RN entry Alexandra shared

[tawny laurel]

but black widow say :Once per Turn Attack Reaction -- Discard an Assassin card: Target Assassin attack gets +3{p}. If it has stealth, it gets "When this hits a hero, they banish a card from their hand."
it clearly indicates that the source is AoD

From the rules:
The official rules back this up clearly:

1.8.1a: “The source of an effect is the same as the source of the ability or effect that generated it, unless otherwise specified by the effect.”
So if AoD banishes the red card, it’s the source—and that’s what matters.

1.8.4: “A conditional effect is an effect that is dependent on a condition to be met. A conditional effect is typically written in the format ‘(If / During) [CONDITION], [EFFECT],’ where CONDITION is the condition that must be met for the EFFECT to be generated/applied. If EFFECT is a list of two or more effects, each effect is a conditional effect with the same condition.”
So in AoD’s case, the condition is "if it banishes a red card", and the effect is "draw and heal." If that specific condition isn't met by AoD, then you don’t get the effect. Simple as that.

this is different for contract cards , as a part of their interactions is for you to be the one banishing , it is stated in the rules as follows :
8.5.39. Contract — Contract is a continuous effect. To contract a player, the player is given a specified set
of actions to complete.
8.5.39a The contract starts when the contract effect is first generated and ends when the effect ceases to
exist. A player is considered to have completed a contract if they have performed the actions
specified by the contract while the effect exists. If another player performs the actions specified by
the contract, they are not considered to have completed the contract because they are not the player
that is contracted.

[tawny wedge]

The important part is that They banish the card. Which isn't art of desire.

[short sandal]

Effects may produce events which may involve physically modifying the game state through one or more instructions to the players (1.8.1, 1.9.1). The player carrying out the instructions doesn't need to be the owner of the effect (see e.g. 1.9.2c, below, where an event involves more than one player performing an instruction).

[tawny laurel]

If art of desire is not the source ,Then what is the effect's source ?

[tawny laurel]

You are not allowed to banish cards without an event instructing you to do so .

[short sandal]

It is the effect source, but the source gives instructions to the players to do things. The player doing the thing doesn't have to be the owner/controller of the source

[tawny laurel]

I agree , I was asking Rene to better understand why it's not art of desire doing the banishing

[tiny ocean]

Simply because the Black Widow effect tells the player to do the banishing, rather than banishing cards itself.

"they banish a card from their hand." Compared to AoD which doesn't tell the player to do it.

[gilded socket]

I agree with this, Contract is referring to you as the player to do an action, while AoD is looking for any banishes that come from itself, although I can see why the confusion is here.

[short sandal]

Yeah looking back at this I think we might have got the wording confused with contract (sorry mad!)

[tawny wedge]

even if it was contract it wouldnt have triggered

[tawny laurel]

I don't understand how does this make AoD not the source . would you mind explaining to me ?

[tawny wedge]

Because art of desire is not instructing you to banish the card. It's instructing the opponent to banish a card. And the condition that art of desire is checking is that the player not the opponent is banishing cards

In the specific case of black widow ability

[tawny laurel]

then i think you read the card wrong . the card does not specify any player . it simply says when "this banishes a red card " the condition doesn't care about the player doing the banishing at all .

[tiny ocean]

But we're talking about Black Widow's effect as applied to AoD. AoD is the source, but that doesn't matter, because the ability instructs the player to banish, as I explained before.

Because Black Widow's ability instructs the player to banish, AoD is not banishing that extra card, therefore it's second ability won't trigger.

[short sandal]

If it was contract it wouldn't trigger, but I think aod should - aod checks whether it banished a card, not whether you banished a card

[tawny wedge]

yeah i think im confusing all the other interactions with banishing.

because mask doesnt trigger this and neither does nuu

[tiny ocean]

Contract is looking for you to banish cards, via effects you control.

Art of Desire is looking for cards it banishes, which includes appended abilities from, say, Just a Nick.

Mask of Recurring Nightmares and Arakni, Black Widow's ability both instruct the defending hero to banish cards, so those effects won't trigger Contract or Art of Desire.

Nuu's ability has you banishing the card, so that would trigger Contract, but not Art of Desire.

I think that summarizes everything lol

[short sandal]

So mask doesn't work with aod because it doesn't give the ability to aod, arakni black widow does because it gives the ability to aod

Aod doesn't care about who banishes

So I think this is right

[smoky axle]

Is your "nuu" column for nuu's passive or her activated ability?

[tiny ocean]

AoD does care, it has to banish the card itself.

Black Widow's ability has the opp vanish, so AoD isn't actually banishing anything and thus won't trigger (see release notes on Black Widow)

[tawny laurel]

Can u show us which part says that the card doesn't gain the ability ?

[smoky axle]

that's not the question
The card does gain the ability
The question is, does Art of Desire only count if it is the actor that banishes the card, or if it is the cause of the banish event regardless of the actor

[tawny laurel]

I think he mixed them , the active will trigger contract , the passive will trigger AoD

[short sandal]

That's for contract - which specifically wants "you" to banish

[tawny laurel]

It's the later

[short sandal]

Activated

[smoky axle]

the question is more "can you justify that it's the latter"

[short sandal]

Her passive would trigger both afaik

[tawny laurel]

Can I walk you through it one by one ?

What's the effect of black widow?

Just bear with me and let's take it slowly

[smoky axle]

I understand the argument. The source of the confusion though is in the semantics, which can't really be argued

[tawny laurel]

How is a card giving the instructions, your opponent banish a card from his hand make it not the source of the effect ?

[tiny ocean]

The source of the effect does not matter

It's who/what is doing the banishing

AoD is NOT banishing a card with the Black Widow ability

[tawny laurel]

Because it says the opponent choose the card ?

[smoky axle]

it is the source of the effect
The question is, is the card looking for the source or the actor?

[tiny ocean]

Because it says the opponent does the banishing. "THEY banish a card from THEIR hand"

[smoky axle]

the wording of the card is lexically ambiguous

[tawny laurel]

Then if it says you banish , it's still not the card banishing , that means it just never trigger

[tiny ocean]

Incorrect. If you control the effect, you are the one banishing, unless otherwise stated.

That's how contract works.

[tawny laurel]

It's not contract card

[tiny ocean]

It functions the same

[tawny laurel]

No it is not

[smoky axle]

it may function similarly

[tiny ocean]

The opponent is banishing the card

AoD does not banish off of Black Widow's ability.

Just look at the difference in wording between AoD's ability and Black Widow's ability.

[tawny laurel]

It reference itself by saying if this card banish x . Meaning if a card was banished as a result of this card , you will gain and draw , the condition does not include any player .

[smoky axle]

The card being banished is caused by AoD. Is AoD looking for an event that it caused to banish a card? Or is it looking for a banish effect where it is the grammatical subject of the clause?

[tawny laurel]

It's looking for the event

[smoky axle]

how do you know that?

[tawny laurel]

It's written in the card by saying when this banish

[smoky axle]

because I can read the card both ways

[tawny laurel]

This banish is an event

[tiny ocean]

"when this banishes" versus "they banish". They are completely different.

[smoky axle]

Yeah, I think if black widow triggered aod, then aod would be worded "when this causes a card to be banished"

[tiny ocean]

I think Black Widow would just say "when this hits a hero, banish a card from their hand" but yeah same difference

[tawny laurel]

This is the definition of an event
event is a change in the game state produced by the resolution of a
layer, the result of an effect, a transition of turn phase or combat step, or an
action taken by a player. An event may involve physically changing the game
state through one or more instructions - it can be modified by replacement
effects (see Section 6.4 - Replacement Effects) and can trigger triggered
effects (see Section 6.6 - Triggered Effect

Does banishing involve a player changing the state of the game ?

[smoky axle]

I understand all of this
None of this is relevant to the question

[tiny ocean]

Look at how Surgical is worded compared to Black Widow. Surgical fulfills a contract, Black Widow would not.

And AoD uses the same grammar as Contract cards

[tawny laurel]

Does It say you?

[tiny ocean]

None of them do

[tawny laurel]

Then what is relevant?

[tiny ocean]

Literally not a single one of these cards species "you", it is implied and part of the rules as written

[smoky axle]

Is AoD looking for an event that it caused to banish a card? Or is it looking for a banish effect where it is the grammatical subject of the clause?

[tiny ocean]

I'm talking about the banish effects, obviously

YOU fulfill YOUR contract even though the banish effect doesn't say YOU

because, as the controller of the effect, you are the one doing the banishing by default

[tawny laurel]

To answer this , you can examin the first part of the card , is AoD mentioned in it's first part ?

[tiny ocean]

Black Widow changes that by specifying someone else.

[smoky axle]

AoD first line of text is very clear that it is doing the banishing.
Arakni Black Widow is not clear if the card itself is doing the banishing

[tiny ocean]

The exact wording in FaB, like any TCG is very important. But, this is going nowhere so I'm muting this thread.

[tawny laurel]

But it's an ability gained by art of desire , how can it not be from art of desire ?

I don't understand this part

[smoky axle]

The issue is what does "from" mean

and are you using the word from in teh same way that the card is?

and yeah, card game rules can get this pedantic

[tawny laurel]

It is an ability generated by art of desire due to the text gained due to the activated ability from black widow

[smoky axle]

yes, now is that what AoD's second ability is looking for?

[tawny laurel]

Yes

[smoky axle]

ok, we are getting nowhere

[tawny laurel]

A source is the same as it's generated abilities

[smoky axle]

is it looking for a source?

the wording implies to me that it's looking for an actor, not a source

[tawny laurel]

And how can u determine who is the actor ?

The card reference no player in its static ability

[smoky axle]

if AoD's first trigger banishes a card, then it is very clearly the actor

the card itself is the actor

[tawny laurel]

But the static ability is not the first effect

It's a different trigger can't be

Put in the same context

[smoky axle]

when the onhit trigger resolves, AoD is the actor that is banishing the card

the turn player is also the actor because they control the card

[tawny laurel]

So if a card said you draw a card and your opponent discards a card , the second effect is not controlled by you ?

[smoky axle]

the effect would be controlled by you, but you would not be the actor who discards a card

[fair bear]

There is a difference between a card being the source of a discard/banish effect and the card itself (and by extension, the player who controls the card) doing the discarding/banishing

[smoky axle]

also to be clear, "actor" is not a term used in the CR, I'm using it informally to convey the idea that there is a difference between the source and what is actually carying out the effect

[tawny laurel]

What is the condition for AoD ?

[tawny laurel]

I replied to the wrong message lol I meant to reply here

[tawny laurel]

I understand that

[smoky axle]

the condition for AoD's second ability to trigger is for it to be the actor behind the banish

[fair bear]

Then what is the issue?

[smoky axle]

at least that's how I read the card

[tawny laurel]

The EVENT and/or STATE specifies the event- and/or state-trigger
condition that triggers the effect and creates a triggered-layer. If the
triggered condition describes an event (or an event and state), the effect is
an event-based triggered effect; if the trigger condition describes a game
state, the effect is a state-based triggered effect. The trigger condition is
not inclusive of the conditions of any effects the triggered-layer would
generate (see Rule 1.8.3).

[smoky axle]

the event it's looking for is "Is AoD the actor behind banishing a card"

that doesn't occur with black widow

[tawny laurel]

I am saying AoD cares about it being the source of a banish event (regardless of who physically moves the cards ), and they are saying no it cares about the controller being the one doing the banishing

[smoky axle]

the fact that you cannot represent my position implies to me that furrther conversation is pointless

[tawny laurel]

Like I said , if a card generated an trigger , it is the source of the trigger

[fair bear]

you just acknowledged that there is a difference between being the source of an event and being the object/player that performs the event

nobody contests that AoD: Body is the source of the trigger that makes an opponent banish a card from their hand, but it instructs the opponent to do so

they get to choose which card, not AoD: Body/you, the player of AoD

[tawny laurel]

I never objected to this

[tawny laurel]

Does this mean a banish event didn't happen ?

[fair bear]

what would draw you to that conclusion?

[tawny laurel]

Ok guys

[gilded socket]

Honestly this seems like a surprisingly unique interaction, that maybe should be cleared with the rules team, I completely understand Mad's position, and agree tbh, but am checking the CR and other cards to see if I can draw a parallel and figure it out

[tawny laurel]

I will not get anywhere

And neither will you . So we just ask LSS to put it in the thing

[fair bear]

I'm just not sure how you connect the two concepts of

a) an object can be the source of an event, but not perform the instructions in the event
and
b) an object that asks "did I do that?" won't say "yes" when it instructs another player to do something

[tawny laurel]

Thanks you all for the contribution honestly, but I am getting too pationate in a not very productive way

[fair bear]

the game is full of cards that generate effects that instruct other players to perform events

[gilded socket]

MaD's point is that the object is asking if the object itself is the one that banished, and is checking if itself is banishing anything

[fair bear]

you would not insist that codex of frailty is putting an attack action card from an opponent's GY into their arsenal, in case some other card had a trigger whenever "you" put a card in an arsenal

[gilded socket]

Contract doesn't care about the source, just cares about who is doing the action

[tawny laurel]

A card can never perform any instructions written on it ... If AoD said this card , it doesn't mean AoD will actually take a card from your hand .AoD generates effects , which are events that give instructions to players to do specific action . If a card told you to banish something althought you will physically move it , it is the card that caused you to banish . This is what I am saying . However again , I will just wait for notes as I see many people have a different stance and I can't convey this concept while tackling 4 different conversations

[gilded socket]

I think a better comparison when it comes to Codex is: if it had the ability "If this discards a Reaction" and your opponent discards a reaction, would it meet the condition?

[gilded socket]

Overall for anyone who decides to join in on this and doesn't want to read the whole thing (and anyone can correct me if they want)

The main point of contention is whether Art of Desire will trigger if an opponent banishes a card that meets the requirement.

Some people are saying it doesn't because it is the opponent banishing the card, and not you.

I believe it does because the card is referring to itself, and is the source of the banish effect, even if the opponent is the one doing the action.

[short sandal]

Aod doesn't ask "did I do that?" It asks "did an effect aod generated do that". There is not specification of player, unlike contract cards. Aod instructs the opposing player to banish their card, but in the exact same way as aid would instruct you to banish their card

[olive saddle]

Any luck with reaching the rules team so far? Would be good information to know how to reach out to them for future reference

[jaunty glade]

It's on our radar

[olive saddle]

Any official updates?

[zenith gazelle]

Have we reached a consensus on this?